Letters to the Editor Sunday

Mike Campbell’s letter to the editor (April 12) about how wonderful a cruise terminal here would be is a masterpiece of misinformation.

Check with the people in Charleston, S.C.. Their cruise port is a disaster.

They would do almost anything to get rid of it. It’s out of scale, crowds of people milling around buying cheap souvenirs, and nothing more.

Their meals are already paid for on the cruise ship. Why should they spend more money in local restaurants? Their beds are already paid for, too.

There would just be mobs of people crowding our fragile Historic District and keeping a firm grip on their closed wallets. Tour buses and trolleys, which are already close to making the Historic District uninhabitable, would flourish even more.

Joe Riley, the longtime and excellent mayor of Charleston, once said words to the effect that cities like his and ours should always maintain a balance between the residents, local businesses and tourism, lest the tourism overwhelm and destroy what the tourists came to see in the first place, and what the residents and local businesses have been trying to preserve, often at great personal sacrifice.

Charleston should have listened to him.

I believe some of the Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax funds were already designated for investments like a baseball stadium. At least it would provide something for us locals, and some income, one would hope, for the city and county.

A cruise ship would kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Forget it.

PARK CALLAHAN

Savannah

Obama’s health care plan is a good start

Dr. Kenneth Zapp’s column on April 9 certainly agreed with the recent CNN program on comparing health care systems and how the United States is so costly and inefficient when compared to other industrialized countries.

Universal coverage is the only logical answer.

It will help with the cost of medications as well as access to care for all. With everyone having some type of insurance, it will prevent the costly “crisis care” we give now to those who do not seek medical care early, due to not having insurance and not having the cash to pay for needed care.

The government has carried out many studies on providing primary, secondary and tertiary prevention, yet little has been done to carry out these recommendations. We have a sickness repair system, not a health care system.

As Dr. Zapp suggests, our medication costs could be more reasonable with the government’s being the single payer for them, and the hospitals would be reimbursed for all patients seeking care there, since everyone would have some type of coverage.

While President Obama’s plan might not be perfect, it is hopeful that the Supreme Court will only dismiss some of it as unconstitutional and use the rest of it to be a starting place for fixing our dysfunctional health care system.

I agree with Dr. Zapp that we can learn from other countries and take the best parts of their health care systems to help all of our citizens have affordable health care options.

CATHY SHRIVER, R.N., M.H.S.

Statesboro

Drawing of law school building wasn’t approved

For the last several years I have served on Savannah’s Historic District Board of Review. I have found Adam VanBrimmer’s reporting to be fair and accurate. The most recent piece regarding Savannah Law School used a drawing which may mislead readers. While that may represent their ultimate vision for the facility, that is not what we reviewed and approved on April 11.

The project we reviewed and approved was for relatively minor rehabilitation and renovation of the north wing of the building. I am sure Savannah can watch for more ambitious work at the site, but for now the approved changes are very modest.

BRIAN JUDSON

Savannah Historic District Board of Review

Savannah

Sharing opinions is why people write letters

After reading Emily Smith’s letter (April 6), “Be careful with those biased opinions,” I would like to respond.

First, bias is defined as leaning in favor of or against something or someone. I would believe that is the reason someone would write a letter to the editor. If Ms. Smith believes bias is in favor of President George W. Bush, I would like her to remember how he was called a murderer by the liberal press for sending troops to Iraq.

Ms. Smith somehow has gotten her facts and figures wrong. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Obama administration spent more in three years than the Bush administration did in eight years.

As far as expanding government and shredding the Constitution, I would like Ms. Smith to tell us what President Bush did to compare with the Affordable Care Act.

Ms. Smith should have done some research before writing her own biased letter.

NORMAN R. DAVISWORTH

Glennville

Driving to Tybee Island? Please be careful

Living on Tybee Island is a great privilege. The beach season has started along with the incredible traffic jams. I plead with all coming to or leaving Tybee to pay attention to your driving and those around you.

Not only does an accident ruin your day, it also ruins the day of those trying to get on or off the island. Just this past Easter weekend, there was evidence of two sites where someone drove off the rode into the marsh.

KATHY SALTER

Tybee Island

Pack of dogs on loose, killing cats

My mother and father have called Animal Control, in Savannah, twice reguarding a pack of dogs running the neighborhood trying to attack their cats.

My mom even went up to their office Monday morning on Sallie Mood to report this again.

When my dad got home Wednesday, this pack of dogs had just murdered one of their cats. They called Animal Control again and they did not do anything. My parents were talking to the neighbor that lives behind them and they said their little girl’s cat was murdered also.

All this could have been prevented. This is a prime example of why people take the law into their own hands. I hope it doesn’t take the death of a child to get something done.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

You infer that the high costs of the last three years are directly linked to the policies of the last three years. You know that is intellectually dishonest. The cost of treating veterans injured during combat in Afghanistan during the Bush years, the veterans injured during combat in Iraq, and the additional veterans who have been injured because President Bush took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan, may have accumulated during President Obama's last three years, but there is certainly no correlation. Then there are the obstructionists in Congress who have refused to pass any Obama legislation lest they appear to have given our President another victory. You can't have it both ways. The costs of treating our injured vets will go on for decades.

Then there are the costs of giving tax cuts to millionaires, but failing to make offsetting budget adjustments on the spending side of the equation. Those costs have continued to grow.

tax rates are one thing. What you actually pay is another. The list of examples is long. My favorite example is the former owner of the Dodgers who made $108 million over 4 years, and paid no taxes -- federal or state.

Instead of Obama increasing capitol gains taxes to 20% he should eliminate capitol gains taxes altogether. This investment money has already been taxed once as earned income, this is double taxation. Savings and investments are the key to long term growth. It makes no sense to encourage people to spend money as they earn it to avoid being taxed twice.

The discussion should boil down to two subjects, who decides what the best medical care is, and who pays for it. Doctors should be the only ones deciding on proper medical care. If the government is involved at all, their role should be limited to preventing billing abuses. Payment is likely the most contentious issue. If you're not a tax payer, someone with no skin in the game, you don't get to vote on how medical care is dispensed. Should medical insurance be handled like other insurances? If you don't have insurance, you must pay the full cost. Wow, what a novel idea!

Buffett can buy a brand new mercedes and write it off as a business expense while he is dining at the finest restaurants and writing them off as business lunches and entertaining clients ! Joe Sixpack is driving a ragged out 67 buick and spending $60.00 a week for gas and taking a peanut butter sandwich for lunch , none of which is deductible !

"A capital gain is a profit that results from investments into a capital asset, such as stocks, bonds or real estate, which exceeds the purchase price."

If I take $10000 out of a checking account, which I have already paid the income tax, and invest it in 100 shares of stock bought at $100 a share and sell it one year later at $105 a share my Capital Gains tax is 15% of 100 shares x $5 = $75. The original $10000 is not taxed again.

Your comment "Buffet did NOT pay less taxes than his secretary," is full of more bull than congress is. If you believe that he pays more in taxes, I have some beachfront property in Arizona I'll sell you for a great price. Buffet even said it himself, admitting that he DOES pay less in taxes than his secretary. Now, ordinarily, people like Buffet wouldn't make admissions like this. Besides, have you seen his tax returns? Just how DO you know he pays less? That's just it, you DON'T!

Well, perhaps if we can expect everyone benefitting from that coverage behave in a logical manner. By that, I mean, take a little responsibility for their own health by watching what they eat and what they do, avoiding behaviors that have been shown to cause illness and death, purchasing insurance before they're in a position that they need it but can't afford it, take whatever employment they can get, so as not to be a drain on society.

When we can get universal personal responsibility and sacrifice, only then should we offer universal health care coverage. We can't afford to feed, house and care for anyone and everyone who doesn't feel like working at the jobs available; taking care of those who truly can't work or pull their own weight is expensive enough.

Mr. Buffet pays a lower tax RATE than his secretary because most of what he makes is capital gains, money that has already been taxed at least once at the corporate level, rather than salary. His secretary pays nowhere near what he pays IN ACTUAL DOLLARS. He also pays a lower RATE than I do, since little of my income is from investments (that will change, when I retire, I hope).

Some will argue that increasing the RATE on capital gains will solve that "disparity". They are dreaming. When rates on CG go up, capital goes elsewhere. Wouldn't you rather we be getting 15% of something in tax revenue than 40% of closer to nothing? Raising the RATE on CG only rarely increases actual revenue. Many of those pushing the increase know this but would rather tax revenues go down than to have people believe they're being soft on "the rich". Image is everything. Common sense? Not even in the running.

I fear the republic is dying, and at our own hands. We forsake what is good in search of the unattainable, fully expecting it to be served us from the bounty of "the state" at little or no personal cost.

This statement is not correct. Warren Buffet paid a lower tax rate then his secretary not less taxes. According to Buffett, his effective tax rate is 17.7 percent while the effective tax rate for his secretary, who earns $60,000, is 30 percent.

Spebbington used $60000. If I make $10000 at work, have $40000 in capital gains and make $10000 in interest my gross is $60000. Let's say I'm 35 and single the IRS allows $3700 personal exemption and I use the standard (I don't use itemized deductions) deduction and allowed $5800, then my taxable income is $60000 - $3700 - $5800 = $50500.

The tax rates are: 10% from 0 to $8500, 15% from $8501 to $34500, 25% from $34501 to $83600, 28% from $83601 to $174400, 33% from 174401 to $379100 and 35% for all over $379100.

So in 1st bracket I'll owe $850, 2nd bracket I'll owe $3900, 3rd bracket I'll owe 25% of (50500-34501) or $4000, and the total is $8750.

wasn't ten per cent. It went by thirds. One-third of the people in the 'colonies' stayed loyal to King George. One-third were indifferent and supported no one, either the Whigs (colonial rebels,) or the King. The American Revolution was begun, sustained, and carried out by one-third of the population living in the 'colonies' at the time. I recently saw a story stating that a group of modern English military historians have selected George Washington as the most efficient, powerful, and successful enemy ever confronted by British armed forces, any time, anywhere.

In my 04/15/2012 10:41 pm example I used $40000 as income from capital gains. Let me change the example to $40000 as income from another job then the $8750 tax amount comes out right, I believe. For $40000 capital gain instead, the tax on that is 15% of 40000 or $6000 and my taxable income from wages, etc. is $20000. Deduction and personal exemption drops that to $10500. The tax on that amount using the tables is $1150, and the total tax is about $7150. So, say Joe's taxable income is based mainly on $60000 of hard work and Bob's comes from a lot less of sweat and toil with $40000 in capital gains pays Uncle Sam $1600 less. Buffet's taxable income is largely taxed at 15%.

until A) people start spending money. B) until the question about the legality of Obamacare. If the Supreme Court upholds it then I'm afraid that will further hurt hiring new employees for that very reason. Yul, didn't you say something the other day about companies hiring temps these days. That might be the way of the future.

All of the people who were elected in 2010 can't do much on their own because the Senate never passes any of their bills. There are some things I want to be wrong about and one of them is my fear of where we as a country are headed are not realized. I am really, really afraid of the world my 14 year old grandaughter and 7 year old grandson will be heading in to.

I'm not a Reagan worshipper, but with this "Capital Gains" tax getting so much attention I looked back into His 1986 Tax Reform where he raised it to 28% and income earners (working dogs) and high hatters were at about the same tax rate.

IMO if it had stayed there maybe our National Debt would have not gone off like a rocket. During the Bush 1 and Clinton administrations the Capital Gains tax was gradually turned back. Bush 2 with Karl Rove (master of dirty tricks and into all kind of other shenanigans) got it back to 15%. Voila! Warren Buffett, secretary conundrum.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of capital gains. If you invest money in a corporation, you are a part owner. Say that you invested $25,000. Five years later you sell your stock for $26,000. So you made $1000 on your investment, right? Not so fast. If the rate of inflation is a modest 3%/year, that means your return after 5 years is only about $22,300 in inflation adjusted dollars, so you've actually LOST about $2,700 of asset value rather than your apparent $1,000 gain. But you are being taxed by the IRS as if you made money, since they seem completely oblivious to the effects of inflation.

As for dividend income, the portion of earnings that are a result of your investment are first taxed at the corporate rate (15-35%) before you get your share. Then, they are taxed an additional 15% for an effective tax rate on your earnings of 28-45%. And if you should be unfortunate enough to have a loss that even the IRS will acknowledge, you can only write it off up to the amount of your total gains for that year. But if you have a gain, they want your money immediately.

The same applies to things like CDs. If you make 1.5% a year but the rate of inflation is 3%, you are LOSING asset value, but Uncle feels like he should tax you anyway. It is a grand deception that allows big government to take even more of what you have earned.

YBN, please, please, explain to us all why capital gains should be taxed more heavily. I think you have to be an ideologue or completely uninformed to come to that conclusion, but obviously, you must have some additional pertinent information of which we all need to be made aware.

Only in the House, and those House Republicans have submitted bills and budgets to the Democrat-controlled Senate where they go to die. The Democrats in the Senate have failed to pass a budget for over 3 YEARS, and Harry Reid makes sure that NO Republican-sponsored bills from the House see the light of day, once they leave the House. How, exactly, can you hold Republicans responsible for not doing anything to solve the problems, when their proposed solutions aren't even given a chance to work?

Just as with Obamacare, the Dems aren't interested in anything the Repubs have to say, unless it's talking points dictated to them by Reid and Pelosi. They have set a precedent and now can't complain if President Romney and the Republican-controlled House and Senate should let THEM sit in the corner for a "time out".

Late to this party but; .. Park, I'm not sure where you're getting your information from but you paint the crusie picture in Charleston to be some post-apocalyptic nightmare. The "cruise port is a disaster" as you put it is a bit off-base. The current facility is an eye-sore but under renovation into what will be a modern but classic site to model after the city itself. "... buying cheap souvenirs, and nothing more." Don't tell that to the 6th generation ladies selling authentic sweetgrass baskets for $200+. Nobody is pushing the cruise industry on Savannah. Quite frankley nobody in Charleston cares what goes on in Savannah (besides the louts who travel for lawful alcohol on public streets)
So while you're bashing Charleston's antics add Conde Nast to your laments and their obvious faulty rating that says the city is the top destination in the country.